Date: May 22, 2013 2:18 AM
Author: mathgroup
Subject: Re: Work on Basic Mathematica Stephen!
I want to comment on my experience , limited of course, with students ofEngineering, Engineers and Professors of Engineering.....my background isPhysics...

First, I get the impression that , in the main, Symbolic Computation, etc.is not something they are really interested in......After I retired, I tookseveral courses in Electromagnetics, one Graduate and the otherUndergraduate......No one suggested the use of or taught the potentialapplications of Mathematica....Even in the Graduate course, I was the onlystudent using Symbolic software ......in fact, the students did everythingby hand and whenever something required software, such as Antenna patterns,out came M-------b with some code , etc....and that was the end of it....So,the students knew no better....and the Professors didnât care or werentinterested themselves in the benefits of learning and solving problemsSymbolically....I asked one Professor if I could give a class lecture on theuse of Mathematica for Electromagnetics...He agreed but than said 'I canonly give you about ten minutes'....I respectfully declined the offer....

So, how does WRI expand its market?....IMO, there have to be dedicatedTeachers on how to use Mathematica in what I'll call the Research Mode notjust define given functions from the text and plot it.......from what I haveseen of the attitude of Instructors and Professors I'm anything butOptimistic....I went to our local Colleges and suggested a sequence ofcourses in Mathematica ending with Animation and Simulation....That got menowhere especially with the Math Depts...so, in part, I see people who arestuck in pencil and paper and refuse to get out of it....

Again, of course, this is my limited experience...Perhaps others have haddifferent and better ones...

I have (maybe) a minority perspective on Mathematica being an engineer. Iused it long ago at university at version 1. The next time I would use itwould be a wolfram approved ebay purchase of version 4. I have used it eversince, but am still rookie in some ways.

I believe WRI is attempting to broaden the user base rather than deepen theproduct. They are doing this by adding (from our perspective) non-value addfeatures to lure people in. The argument is the learning curve is lesswhich should lead to greater sales. This is not how it works at any place Ihave been.

The only engineering sales force that matters is engineers. If they can'targue for the product, it will not happen. Engineers can't argue forsomething they are unable use until after purchase and additional training.If you want engineers to demonstrate something or argue for it, you have todo more than offer wizards and connections to WolframAlpha which only applyafter the sale. Engineers need to show understanding and capability.Managers have to show accounting they are saving money by buyingMathematica. Improvements in quality of OUR products or ability to addressgreater problems is not quantifiable to the brigade of MBAs who run modernbusinesses. There has to be quantifiable savings. This has to bedemonstrated by engineering staff before purchase and framed in terms ofreduced need for time (salary expense).

I think this can only be achieved by making the online education materialtargeted to a specific audience. This material must solve real problems ina way that conveys the underlying capability.

I have been told by WRI that most users will only use 5% (at most) ofMathematicas total ability. LoL, if only everyone would use the same 5%.

If you want us to be able to sell it, you have to provide training for freeso we can get started solving engineering problems prior to purchase.Combine this with a 60 day trial and you could save a lot of WRI developmentdollars on bells and whistles that won't increase sales. Help us help you!Stop trying to treat sales tools as a profit center!